Galaxy Digital’s Alex Thorn Updates on Lawsuit Seeking Ownership of Dormant Bitcoin Addresses

Galaxy Digital research head Alex Thorn reported new developments in a lawsuit brought by two anonymous Wyoming companies seeking a court ruling that about 39,069 long-inactive Bitcoin addresses are “abandoned property,” which would grant them legal ownership of the associated BTC. According to Odaily, the plaintiffs claim the assets involved exceed $200 billion and include some wallets believed to date to the “Satoshi era.” On May 29, Bitcoin attorney Ian R. Cohen filed an amicus brief arguing that New York’s lost-property law does not apply to self-custodied Bitcoin, that “dormant” does not mean “abandoned,” and that courts have no jurisdiction over private keys. He said that in Bitcoin, control of the private key equals ownership, and without control of the private key, a party cannot claim the asset. On June 4, Judge Kathy King granted Cohen’s request to be heard and issued a stay covering the entire case, freezing further proceedings before formal hearings. Thorn said the stay blocked the plaintiffs from pursuing a default judgment route based on “no one responding.” On June 18, plaintiffs’ attorney David Lin asked the court to lift or narrow the stay, arguing that non-parties should not affect the case’s progress and that an amicus brief is unnecessary if defendants do not appear. On June 19, Cohen filed a rebuttal stating the stay was issued by the court on its own initiative and that “no one responding” is a structural issue because the 39,069 addresses named as defendants cannot appear. He also questioned the plaintiffs’ use of a $10 amount in controversy while seeking a ruling that could involve hundreds of billions of dollars in Bitcoin. Cohen further said on-chain data shows some addresses labeled dormant moved during the case, citing at least 52 addresses that transferred about 34,335 BTC, including 29 addresses that moved about 12,302 BTC after service, which he argued weakens the “abandoned assets” premise. Thorn said the case remains pending and that a default judgment could affect legal definitions around self-custodied Bitcoin and fuel debate over whether dormant addresses should be treated as ownerless property.